CRIMINAL APPROPRIATION OF TRUST PROPERTY. (Hansard, 3 April 1856)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he rose to ask for leave to introduce a Bill for the purpose of amending the law relating to the criminal appropriation of trust property held by persons as trustees or bailees. According to the Common Law of England, if a person obtained possession of property for a specific purpose for the benefit of another, and afterwards fraudulently appropriated it, he was only civilly liable to a Court of Common Law or Equity. The consequences arising from this state of the law were so serious—and in many instances ludicrous—that the Courts introduced many exceptions. Thus, although if a carrier appropriated a parcel which had been entrusted to him to carry, or a tradesman a watch which had been sent to him to be repaired, they were not criminally liable; yet, if the carrier opened the parcel and took something out, or the watchmaker took only the case of the watch, that was larceny, and he was criminally responsible. In the same way, if a man hired a horse to go from London to York, and when he got half-way it occurred to him to sell it, he was only civilly responsible; but if it could be shown that when he hired the horse he intended to dispose of it he was guilty of larceny. Such was for a long time the law, and such it was at present, except that some appropriations, such as the appropriation of money received by a servant for the benefit of his master, and the appropriation of securities and other articles deposited with them by bankers, agents, and factors, had by statute been made criminal offences. 433 To this day, however, if a person not the subject of one of these exceptions, as an ordinary trustee entrusted with money for a specific purpose, fraudulently appropriated it to his own use, he was only civilly responsible, and the Insolvent Court or the Court of Bankruptcy would clear him of the consequences of what he had done. Such fraudulent appropriations were of more frequent occurrence than many persons were aware of. With those anomalies he proposed, by the Bill he wished to introduce, to do away, and to put the case of persons entrusted with funds or other property for the benefit of others, and who misappropriated such property, upon the footing on which bankers stood with reference to securities. He also proposed to do away with the technical rule by which, if a man had by legitimate means acquired property for a specific purpose, he escaped criminal responsibility for its misappropriation. He did not see that it mattered much whether a man intended to steal a horse when he hired it, or whether the idea occurred to him afterwards. The measure which he asked leave to introduce would, therefore, do away with an anomaly which led to very serious consequences in cases of breach of trust, and he hoped that no objection would be raised to it.

MR. WALPOLE
said, he wished to know whether the Bill would contain a provision to preserve the civil responsibility of trustees to make good any funds they had wasted? Unless such a provision was introduced, by being made criminally responsible, they would be relieved from their civil responsibility.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the suggestion, and would take care to introduce such a provision.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he approved of the Bill; but, in justice to the general body of trustees, he felt bound to say that the great majority of breaches of trust arose from misapprehension and mistake, and chiefly from a desire to oblige the families interested. He had met many cases, however, in which he regretted the parties could not be made criminally responsible.

§ MR. BOWYER
said, he also agreed in the general provisions of the Bill, but it would require to be dealt with with great care and attention, lest it should inflict hardship upon trustees, who performed a most thankless office, and who generally committed breaches of trust not with any criminal intention, as had just been men- 434 tioned by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, but to oblige the parties beneficially interested. If they were to add to the liability of trustees the risk of a criminal prosecution, it would make their position a great deal more dangerous. That fear would make trustees very much alarmed. He merely mentioned this as a caution to the House in entertaining the measure in question.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he could assure the House that he was most sensibly alive to the danger which had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member, but he thought that danger had been avoided by the wording of the Bill.